Making It Local: Teachers’ Sociomaterial Practices in Localising Global Curricula

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Curriculum borrowing in Southeast Asia (SEA) is a prevalent strategy to align educational practices with global standards, foster economic advancement, and support development of local curricula. However, this process requires localisation to ensure that borrowed content aligns with local pedagogical and cultural contexts. While past research has documented the borrowing trend, few studies have illuminated how localisation is enacted by educators in diverse SEA settings. This gap is addressed in the current study by exploring the sociomaterial dynamics of localising borrowed curricula. It specifically seeks to: (1) describe how localisation unfolds in particular SEA contexts, and (2) examine the process of localisation through the lens of Actor-Network Theory (ANT).

Methodology: This qualitative study employed semi-structured interviews with six participants: two school administrators, two teacher educators, and two teachers from Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos. Participants were selected via convenience sampling and interviewed via online platforms or email. Data were analysed using ANT, focusing on three dimensions: sociality, textuality, and materiality. This was to examine the interplay of human and non-human elements in shaping the localisation process. Member-checking was conducted to ensure transcription accuracy and interpretive validity.

Main Results: Findings suggest that localisation is often confined to the classroom level and shouldered by teachers with little institutional support. Administrators and teacher educators viewed localisation as the responsibility of teachers, albeit influenced by top-down discourses on globalisation and curriculum legitimacy. From the findings, three key themes emerged:

a.  Sociality revealed who was involved or excluded from the localisation process, with teachers operating with limited systemic backing.

b. Textuality examined discourses surrounding localisation, showing how global legitimacy pressures coexisted with expectations for local cultural responsiveness.

c. Materiality referred to actual pedagogical actions, such as modifying materials, incorporating local examples, or using students’ home languages.

Discussions: The study shows that localisation is both a pedagogical and political act, which is shaped by sociocultural values and institutional priorities. Borrowed curricula serve symbolic and practical functions, such as enhancing legitimacy, expanding networks, and demonstrating modernisation; however, localisation is rarely collaborative as it tends to be reactive, fragmented, and emotionally challenging for teachers navigating between institutional mandates and students’ realities. Teachers’ efforts to reconcile global standards with local needs illustrate their professional adaptability and sociomaterial engagement. Yet, this also reveals systemic neglect, as these individualised efforts are often unrecognised and unsupported.

Conclusions: Localisation of borrowed curricula in SEA occurs within complex sociomaterial ecologies where teachers, often acting in isolation, draw upon contextual knowledge and pedagogical creativity to enact culturally relevant instruction. While administrators recognise the need for localisation, structural systems rarely provide the necessary resources or authority to facilitate it. Future research should include voices of students and community members and adopt longitudinal and ethnographic approaches to capture the evolving and situated nature of localisation. Institutional support, participatory curriculum development, and pedagogical autonomy are critical for sustainable and inclusive localisation practices.